Hi.
John Pedersen wrote:
> Fantastic! Thanks very much for letting me know.
>
> I was interested to see "top" and "bottom". If these are for
> overlining and underlining(?), will this construction with menclose
> now be preferred over <mover>, <munder> with &OverBar;? If so, we
> should perhaps remove OverBar from the list Simon had started.
>
> > To: jpederse@wiley.com, S.Pepping@elsevier.nl
> > cc: ww-math@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: menclose
> > Date: 08/15/03 03:35 PM
> >
> > > I'm waiting on this naming issue to be resolved so that we can finish
> > > marking up a product. So the sooner it can be decided, the better.
> >
> > The Math WG discussed this, and the list of names we settled on was:
> >
> > longdiv | actuarial | radical | box | roundedbox | circle | left |
> > right | top | bottom | updiagonalstrike | downdiagonalstrike |
> > verticalstrike | horizontalstrike
Obviously there is an overlap in functionality, and one could use
menclose for overlining and underlining. But my personal view is that
this is kind of abusing the notion of menclose, so I would prefer to
see under/overlining continue to be done with the mover/munder
construction.
However, I'm open to hearing an argument to the contrary.
--Robert
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Robert Miner RobertM@dessci.com
MathML 2.0 Specification Co-editor 651-223-2883
Design Science, Inc. "How Science Communicates" www.dessci.com
------------------------------------------------------------------